10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Giorgio]

The energy required to create a Muon in the lab is in excess of 100 MeV. That amount of energy would not be available from fusion events, it is true, but it might be available, for example, if one kind of breakdown of an isotope of nickel happened to produce an anti-proton.

Breaking down a nickel isotope to create antiprotons will require even more energy, IMHO.

We don't know. We don't have the physics, yet, to outright claim that "such-and-such is impossible". No such definitive statement can be made.

We don't know.

I'll concede you that.
Knowledge is still scarce in the area, but I can confidentially claim that if Rossi process really works it will not do it according the route you described.
We already have Axil proposing all type of nonsense theories here and there is really no need to add more.

[marvin57]

The energy required to create a Muon in the lab is in excess of 100 MeV. That amount of energy would not be available from fusion events, it is true, but it might be available, for example, if one kind of breakdown of an isotope of nickel happened to produce an anti-proton.

Breaking down a nickel isotope to create antiprotons will require even more energy, IMHO.

How do you know? AFAIK, a proton and an anti-proton have the same mass, the same rest energy. How do you know that there is not some weird mechanism in some peculiar circumstance that "flips" a proton to an anti-proton? This does not seem to me to be energetically impossible.

We don't know. We don't have the physics, yet, to outright claim that "such-and-such is impossible". No such definitive statement can be made.

We don't know.

I'll concede you that.
Knowledge is still scarce in the area, but I can confidentially claim that if Rossi process really works it will not do it according the route you described.
We already have Axil proposing all type of nonsense theories here and there is really no need to add more.

I am not claiming that any particular mechanism is at work.

I am merely claiming that it is not, to the best of our knowledge, outright impossible that there could be a real mechanism at work here.

We don't know of any such mechanism. We also don't know that there can't be such a mechanism.

[Giorgio]

It does not fit this definition: "Research is repeatable if others could do it and gain similar results and findings."

... but it does fit this definition: "the ability of a process to produce results which are essentially the same when other process parameters are held constant."

... and it also fits this definition: "In a repeatable manner, capable of being repeated"

OK, so I grant you, Rossi's demonstrations are NOT scientific research. No argument from me, I agree.

This does not mean that Rossi's devices do not work. It does not mean that they do not produce energy. It does not even mean that they do not produce fusion.

Of course it might work, no one here claimed that we know for sure that it does not work.
We are just rebutting arguments from people claiming that there are already evidences that Rossi device is working without any doubt and there is no need of further investigations.
This is completely wrong.

What we know now is just that something might be happening.
If it is due to a mistake in experimental procedures, a willing fraud or if it is real is something that NO one can say right now.

My opinion so far is that the evidences are not in favour of Rossi.
No experimental setup.
No experimental procedures.
No independent verification.
No communication with critics.

Anyhow, I am still waiting to see a test done in a scientific way before judging him.

[Skipjack]

We already have Axil proposing all type of nonsense theories here and there is really no need to add more.

I agree, it is somewhat pointless an exercise as long as we dont have more data. Right now we do not even know for sure that the thing really works as advertised.
I believe it would be better to just leave the thing allone until we have all the data.
Right now, we dont even have anything to base speculation on.

[Giorgio]

How do you know? AFAIK, a proton and an anti-proton have the same mass, the same rest energy. How do you know that there is not some weird mechanism in some peculiar circumstance that "flips" a proton to an anti-proton? This does not seem to me to be energetically impossible.

If there was a natural mechanism like the one you suggested the universe as we know it will not exist.

[marvin57]

Of course it might work, no one here claimed that we know for sure that it does not work.

I can't agree with you here, from my reading, there are many people vigorously claiming exactly that.

We are just rebutting arguments from people claiming that there are already evidences that Rossi device is working without any doubt and there is no need of further investigations.
This is completely wrong.

What we know now is just that something might be happening.
If it is due to a mistake in experimental procedures, a willing fraud or if it is real is something that NO one can say right now.

On this point we are, however, in complete and absolute agreement.

Anyhow, I am still waiting to see a test done in a scientific way before judging him.

Fair enough.

For me, if he can make devices, repeatedly, which do work on demand to produce energy in the amounts he claims, that will do. I'll take it, with thanks.

[marvin57]

How do you know? AFAIK, a proton and an anti-proton have the same mass, the same rest energy. How do you know that there is not some weird mechanism in some peculiar circumstance that "flips" a proton to an anti-proton? This does not seem to me to be energetically impossible.

If there was a natural mechanism like the one you suggested the universe as we know it will not exist.

It depends on how rare the circumstances which give rise to it happening are, and even then on how many anti-protons actually materialise. If these numbers are both very low, we might see a universe with a lot of energy in it ...

There has been some speculation, I have read, that there might even be anti-galaxies, or anti-black-holes (made from collapsing anti-suns I presume). Imagine if an anti-black-hole collided with a normal black hole! You would get a very big bang, I imagine.

Now where have I heard that term before?

[Giorgio]

Of course it might work, no one here claimed that we know for sure that it does not work.

I can't agree with you here, from my reading, there are many people vigorously claiming exactly that.

If someone vigorously claims that it works it can happen that as counterargument someone else will vigorously claim that it does not.
But that's another issue.
The general consensus here is that we are skeptics because to date no real indications or independent verifications has been made.

We are not close minded people here, otherwise we will not be participating in a forum dedicated to the Polywell.

[MSimon]

How do you know? AFAIK, a proton and an anti-proton have the same mass, the same rest energy. How do you know that there is not some weird mechanism in some peculiar circumstance that "flips" a proton to an anti-proton?

If it happens at all the probability must be quite low. The universe is still here.

Now if the probability is quite low the odds that it is happening in the Rossi Experiments (he got lucky because as you have pointed out - other than plumbing and maybe not even there - he is not well educated) is quite low.

As to why I care? Well there are lurkers here and I'm unwilling to let assertions go unchallenged. We are fortunate to have a board with a preponderance of engineers commenting. Generally a very sceptical bunch. Assertions without evidence do not sit well with engineers.

[MSimon]

This does not fit every single possible meaning of the word "repeatable", and I agree it does not fit the formal scientific evidence definition, but it does indeed fit a number of ordinary uses of the word "repeatable"

But we are engineers and scientists here (well a lot of us anyway). We expect more rigor than "common usage".

So Rossi has built a number of devices. Fine. Why doesn't he run his set-up to produce 40C output instead of 11C? Is it possible that the higher temps kill the reaction? Or maybe he needs the dissolved oxygen in the water to burn the hydrogen. That might explain the high flow rates.

Which is to say: maybe all he has done is create a very poor hydrogen burner.

[marvin57]

This does not fit every single possible meaning of the word "repeatable", and I agree it does not fit the formal scientific evidence definition, but it does indeed fit a number of ordinary uses of the word "repeatable"

But we are engineers and scientists here (well a lot of us anyway). We expect more rigor than "common usage".

So Rossi has built a number of devices. Fine. Why doesn't he run his set-up to produce 40C output instead of 11C? Is it possible that the higher temps kill the reaction? Or maybe he needs the dissolved oxygen in the water to burn the hydrogen. That might explain the high flow rates.

Which is to say: maybe all he has done is create a very poor hydrogen burner.

Maybe so. But if that indeed is all he has done, then he won't be able to build his one megawatt plant comprising 300 reactors each of 4 kW by October 2011, and he consequently won't get paid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Cat ... cial_plans

He will have wasted nothing except his own money. Why should his folly draw such vitriol from this forum?

If, however, he is being honest, as are the two Swedish physicists, Hanno Essén and Sven Kullander, and indeed the March 2011 tests in Bologna did in actual fact run for six hours and produce about 25 kWh of energy, as reported, then he has done a lot more than produce a very poor hydrogen burner. One simply can't fit enough hydrogen into a 50cc volume to make 25 kWh of heat from.

PS: Does 300 reactors count as "repeatable"?

PPS: Does "no plant, no power, no pay" count as a scam?

"Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit." ... is this somehow not so for Rossi?

[raphael]

Giorgio says:

"We are just rebutting arguments from people claiming that there are already evidences that Rossi device is working without any doubt and there is no need of further investigations."

This is total and outrageous BS.

When challenged to give an example of even one such person making such a claim, Giorgio cannot and attempts, instead, to change the subject.

[Helius]

In order for it to be a scam, the scammer has to be asking for money. This is in the nature of an essential pre-requisite for any scam.

No. It isn't a prerequisite. The request for cash is the attempt to 'close' (in salesmanship parlance) the scam, at least for that 'investor'.

My prediction is that the "opportunity" to invest will come before a rigorous and peer reviewed experiment is ever performed, where any seeming violations of thermodynamic principles demand further research. Rigorous experimentation simply isn't being done, probably because the level of tantalizing results are inversely proportional to the rigor of the experiment. It pretty clearly part scam, part wishful thinking.

It seems most such scams are on a continuum between 100% scam and 100% wishful thinking; Even Bernie Madoff probably held on to a sliver of hope that all his investments would pay off. I'll bet Jim Baker felt he was doing more good than harm while he was fleecing his flock.

I don't know where on the scam-wishful thinking continuum Rossi lies, but it'd be a sure bet that a rigorous experiment won't precede the request for cash.

[raphael]

Helius says:

"No. It isn't a prerequisite. The request for cash is the attempt to 'close' (in salesmanship parlance) the scam, at least for that 'investor'."

So, it's a definite scam already because Rossi "might" at some future date attempt to close a deal?

At some future date, pigs "might" also fly.

More outrageous BS.....

[parallel]

Some thoughts for the day.

"It is not uncommon for engineers to accept the reality of phenomena
that are not yet understood, as it is very common for physicists to
disbelieve the reality of phenomena that seem to contradict contemporary
beliefs of physics" - H. Bauer

"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled,
the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in
them?' " - H. G. Wells

"I believe there is no source of deception in the investigation of
nature which can compare with a fixed belief that certain kinds of
phenomena are IMPOSSIBLE." -William James

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something
is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
- Arthur C. Clarke's First Law

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy

"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative
scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the
preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When
this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their
prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them."
- Arthur C. Clarke, 1963

"Doubt everything or believe everything: these are two equally
convenient strategies. With either we dispense with the need for
reflection." - Henri Poincare